Written evidence - Ben Nimmo and Dr Jonathan Eyal


Written evidence submitted by Ben Nimmo and Dr Jonathan Eyal
Russia's information warfare - airbrushing reality
Ben Nimmo is a senior fellow at the Institute for Statecraft in London specialising in Russian
information warfare and influence. He formerly worked as a press officer at NATO and a journalist
in Brussels and the Baltic States.
Dr Jonathan Eyal is the Associate Director, Strategic Research Partnerships, and International
Director of the Royal United Services Institute. He also serves as a Senior Research Fellow and
Editor of the RUSI Newsbrief.
This work is submitted in a personal capacity by both authors.
1. Russia is conducting a coordinated but undeclared information campaign against the United
Kingdom, attempting to influence the UK's domestic debate on key issues in order to produce an
outcome of benefit to Russia. This campaign is lobbying for a British exit from the EU, the scrapping
of Trident, and a Scottish exit from the Union - all outcomes which would weaken the UK and give
Russia a freer hand in world affairs. This is unacceptable behaviour by a foreign government.
2. The precise impact of this behaviour is hard to measure. However, Russian claims that the Scottish
independence referendum was fixed certainly fuelled the broader campaign to question the vote,[1]
and the Kremlin-funded media certainly amplified and expanded on those claims.[2] Anecdotal
evidence supports the thesis that this coverage had at least some degree of impact on some individual
voters;[3] the degree to which the disinformation has penetrated different audiences merits further
3. Moreover, regardless of the impact of this disinformation, the fact that a disinformation campaign
is being conducted by Russian government outlets remains demonstrably the case; that case is set out
below. This being so, appropriate legal and diplomatic responses should be brought to bear both on
the direct actors in the disinformation campaign, and on the Russian government more broadly.
Conduct of the campaign: airbrushing reality
4. Russia's information warfare in the UK can best be thought of as an attempt to airbrush reality.
Objective reality - the actual relationship between majority and minority, mainstream and fringe - is
systematically replaced by a pseudo-reality in which minorities who echo the Kremlin's strategic
priorities are presented as the majority, and the genuine majority is presented as a fringe, if it is
presented at all.
5. The chief communicators of this airbrushed reality are the Kremlin-funded media outlets RT
(formerly Russia Today) and Sputnik.
6. Both RT and Sputnik are funded by the Russian government. RT's official budget[4] stood at 13.85
billion rubles in 2015;[5] the equivalent figure for Sputnik's parent organisation, the Rossiya

1 of 12

27/03/16 21:48

parliament.[6] 7. especially its "Op-Edge" opinion and talk show. Six of the interviews were given to UKIP MEPs. and quotes from multiple UKIP sources attacking the deal. an anti-EU opinion piece by former Greek finance minister Yanis Varoufakis. 10. Coverage for UKIP 13. and the chairman of the Stronger In campaign.8 billion rubles. There were no quotes from pro-EU lobbyists. For example. the Reuters report on the same issue quoted Elliott."[8] and that "views must also be presented with due weight over appropriate time frames".[10] Other than the protagonists in the story . Pushing for Brexit 9.svc. and a report saying that banks were "scaremongering" by warning of currency shocks in the event of a Brexit. The most notable and frequently-practised violation is the practice of allocating disproportionate coverage to speakers who echo the Kremlin's preferred narratives on issues such as Brexit (supported by the Kremlin). Sputnik's is not. This may be achieved within a programme or over a series of programmes taken as a whole.[9] However. thought of the deal.[11] This is a genuinely balanced report. chief executive of Vote Leave.. Trident renewal (opposed) and the report on the murder of Alexander Litvinenko (opposed). 11.[7] 8. RT's reporting featured an interview with leading Out campaigner Robert Oulds. it largely falls outside Ofcom's remit. For comparison.).the report quoted two commentators: Matthew Elliott.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence. by contrast. both RT and Sputnik regularly and systematically violate journalistic standards in a way which serves the Kremlin's interests. that "Due impartiality on matters of political or industrial controversy and matters relating to current public policy must be preserved on the part of any person providing a service (. Sputnik's 2 February report on the outcome of talks between European Council President Donald Tusk and the Prime Minister carried the clearly partisan headline "Cameron's long-awaited Brexit deal plans branded trivial by critics".Ben Nimmo and Dr Jonathan Eyal http://data. Scottish independence (supported). between June 2014 and June 2015. 2 of 12 27/03/16 21:48 . However. Segodnya news agency (which also incorporates the Russian-language RIA Novosti). Stuart Rose. stations such as Radio Free Europe. and mainstream politicians whose views chime with the Kremlin's chosen narratives. stood at 5. the Christian Democrat group which is the largest in the parliament (Fig. inter alia. of the anti-EU campaign. which state. RT compares itself explicitly with other international public-service broadcasters. just one was given to a member of the European People's Party (EPP).. a stand-alone report on what Professor Patrick Minford. giving the impression that Tusk's proposals had been universally rejected by critics. given that much of the RT and Sputnik coverage is presented on the internet. UKIP appears to benefit from disproportionate coverage and air time on RT. and UKIP MEP Jane Collins. Op-Edge conducted 20 interviews with members of the European Parliament of all persuasions.. Such disproportionate coverage is a violation of Ofcom's standards.. Neither outlet gave similar coverage to any commentators arguing in favour of staying in.S. notably the BBC and U. For example. Subsequent coverage by Sputnik included a stand-alone report on what Nigel Farage thought of the proposed deal. "experts" of dubious background.Tusk and the Prime Minister . They achieve their effect by giving disproportionate coverage to extremist politicians. More generally.Written evidence . a consistent Eurosceptic. 1). 12.

and 2) the number of committee chairs and vice chairs it nominates. it kicked into high gear when Jeremy Corbyn declared his candidacy.Ben Nimmo and Dr Jonathan Eyal http://data. compared with 32 covering Cameron (see Fig 2). budgetary control and agriculture. of Cameron’s 32 headlines.. In other words. Of the 25 headlines bearing Corbyn’s name. political influence is measured by 1) the number of MEPs a group controls. at the expense of a much more influential one.svc. 21 were positive or neutral. For anyone familiar with the European Parliament . A similar bias is evident in RT's coverage of the Labour leadership election. In terms of the legislative process.as both the authors of this paper are .parliament. RT headlined 25 stories with Corbyn’s name.this is a remarkable editorial choice. 17. While relatively neutral in the early stages of the process.[13] However.[14] 3 of 12 27/03/16 21:48 . and even outdid Cameron in supportive quality.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence. 15. one of the smallest fractions. Between 1 June and 10 August 2015. the reporting bias is not only systematic. The Labour leadership campaign 16.Written evidence . and its members chair committees including foreign affairs. however. but deliberate. The editorial decision to give such prominence to a relatively un-influential group.. The EPP is the largest fraction.a proportion of 84% positive. while just four were negative . 16 were positive or neutral. put him on a par with the Prime Minister in the quantity of coverage. and its members do not chair or vice-chair any committees at all. while 16 were negative.[12] UKIP belongs to the EFDD. a proportion of 50% positive. Fig. RT gave Corbyn a prominence which eclipsed the other three contenders. can only realistically be explained by a desire to promote the messages of that group.1 14.

Yvette Cooper and Liz Kendall. The overwhelming majority of RT's coverage of the Labour race was devoted to Corbyn. the story was about Corbyn. 19. As Fig. Kendall once and Burnham none at all. but one line had been added to list the other contenders. Even these figures tend to understate the prominence he was given. 21. while his opponents were not interviewed at all. Where his name featured in 25 RT online headlines between 1 June and 10 August. Fig. 4 of 12 27/03/16 21:48 . Andy Burnham. On roughly half the occasions on which the other candidates were mentioned.Written evidence . 2 18. This indication is reinforced by the treatment meted out to Corbyn's rivals for the leadership. His photo was shown six times more often than those of all his rivals put together.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.[15] 20.Ben Nimmo and Dr Jonathan Eyal http://data... Corbyn was mentioned in RT's news reports more than twice as often as any of his rivals.svc. Cooper was headlined twice. 3 shows. Such a high proportion of supportive headlines is in itself strongly indicative of a systematic bias. This imbalance was not confined to the headlines. and he was interviewed twice.

svc. 24. 4): Fig. Corbyn was the most-headlined candidate on both websites.parliament. 4 23. Fig..Ben Nimmo and Dr Jonathan Eyal http://data. and a disproportionate share of positive comment. Taken together. 5 of 12 27/03/16 21:48 . It could be argued that Corbyn’s prominence was a result of the surprise nature of his candidacy: RT is not the only channel to have paid more attention to the leadership contest since he threw his hat into the ring. it is instructive to compare RT’s online coverage in this respect with the BBC website (Fig. However.Written evidence . compared with 89% on RT (25 out of 28).one which goes well beyond what might be considered a journalist’s natural interest in an apparently outside candidate..uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence. these figures indicate a clear and systematic RT bias in favour of Corbyn . and which includes both disproportionate coverage.[16] but he accounted for roughly 43% of the headlines (47 out of 110) on the BBC site. 3 22.

but the public broadcaster of a foreign government. on the one hand.. including his opposition to the renewal of Trident and his criticism of the U. if it does not observe strict rules of impartiality. and UKIP. Systematically unbalanced coverage which promotes one particular point of view is a violation of the basic standards of journalism. and as such. Mercouris regularly comments on foreign affairs for RT and Sputnik. however. Its key opinion piece on the issue gave prominence to an analysis written by Alexander Mercouris.Written evidence ..S. chime closely with Moscow's own strategic narrative of a weak. A publicly-owned one. who has gone on the record as saying that Hitler's behaviour until 1939 marked him out as "politician of the highest order". the fact that RT gave Corbyn some positive attention is hardly earth-shattering stuff. Interestingly. partisan by nature. This naturally is cited as part of the Kremlin’s nefarious campaign of influence in the UK elections. The authors of this paper would argue that the systematic bias in favor of Corbyn. 26. Mercouris. is most likely to be executing the interests of the government which funds it. aggravates the offence. faking the signature of one High Court judge and claiming that another had him abducted. the 'Kremlin-controlled television channel.svc.parliament.. what neither outlet has seen fit to publish is the fact that his legal experience in London ended with him being struck off for multiple counts of professional misconduct. A privately-owned media outlet can be expected to execute the interests of its owner. who is also reported to have strong far-right links."[17] 28. In this context. described as "a practicing lawyer for 12 years at the Royal Courts of Justice". and are therefore useful to validate the Kremlin's views. The editorial decision to refer to them repeatedly as experts. No mention is made. is. however.. Other unusual "analysts" quoted by the two outlets include far-right French politician Aymeric Chauprade (an advisor to Marine Le Pen). whatever outlet is involved. This is not to suggest that Corbyn himself played any conscious role in this distorted presentation of events. privately-owned station. "Analysts have noted that RT. Questionable experts 29.[19] 30. None of these commentators can be viewed as a genuinely independent expert.S. However.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.[18] The RT piece included a link to his analysis. many of his views. Migranyan formerly headed a Russian NGO tasked with examining human-rights abuses in the U. The fact that RT is not an independent. a serious matter.[22] 32. in fact. which operates in Britain' (gasp) gave 'very positive and extensive' coverage to Corbyn during his leadership campaign. The two outlets also show bias in their use of allegedly "expert" commentators to provide analysis of the news of the day. and writes extensively for online publication Russia Insider. Chauprade and Piskorski are both politicians. 33. concealing salient features of their 6 of 12 27/03/16 21:48 .[20] 31. decadent and divided West. A case in point is RT's coverage of the Litvinenko report. as a disgraced lawyer. Russian academic Andranik Migranyan. at least one RT opinion piece has acknowledged the fact of biased coverage in favour of Corbyn.Ben Nimmo and Dr Jonathan Eyal http://data. arguing that this was acceptable because other parts of the "establishment media" had unfairly attacked him: 27. of the brutal anti-Corbyn campaign waged by the majority of the UK establishment media for months in the run up to his election. cannot be considered disinterested in his commentaries on the legal system which expelled him. 25. including deceiving a client. on the other.[21] and Polish fringe politician Mateusz Piskorski. which termed the Litvinenko report a "farce" and "worthless".

[24] 36. the Kremlin has its narrative amplified and validated by external commentators. background. 5. and in some cases. approved on 10 June 2015. Social Democrat (including Labour). these politicians both advocate for the Kremlin's point of view in public. The Front National is known to have benefited from a multi-million-euro loan from a bank reportedly linked to the Kremlin. We conclude that it serves the purpose of promoting narratives which are useful to the Kremlin.all voted overwhelmingly to condemn Russia.. Conservative eurosceptic (including Tory) and Greens .uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence. that Russia had deliberately violated international law through its actions in Ukraine. it benefits from their votes. with figures representing the percentage of each party which voted in each direction):[25] Fig. Liberal. and thereby reinforces the disproportionate coverage described above. can hardly be accidental. inter alia. the far eurosceptics (including UKIP). The breakdown of which parties voted for and against makes striking viewing (Fig. far left and eurosceptic extreme in Europe. 35. The mainstream parties . 5 37. UKIP benefits from disproportionate coverage in Russia's English-language media.Written evidence . The prominence given to fringe politicians is part of a symbiotic relationship between the Kremlin's media and the far right. In return. and the far right (including the French Front National and Hungary's Jobbik) all voted in Russia's favour. It was approved by 494 votes to 135. As we have seen..Christian Democrat. Thus the Russian state's English-language media give disproportionate coverage to politicians whose views validate the Kremlin's narrative(s). the far left.[26] A number of analysts have highlighted the ties between Russia and other far-right and far-left groups. RT and Sputnik give such politicians an international platform to publicise their views. with 69 abstentions.svc.[27] 38. Particularly telling in this regard is the European Parliament resolution on relations with Russia. The 7 of 12 27/03/16 21:48 . and that the parliament was "deeply concerned with Russia's support for and financing of radical and extremist parties in the EU Member States". However. The far left and far right 34.[23] This strongly-worded document stated.parliament.Ben Nimmo and Dr Jonathan Eyal http://data. and vote in favour of its interest when necessary. in return.

the Soviet Union agreed to dismantle the Warsaw Pact. in that respect. when the Cold War ended. so is the fact that no reciprocity was either discussed at that time between the USSR and the West.Ben Nimmo and Dr Jonathan Eyal http://data.parliament. broad hostility to the West is unremitting. and it involves delivering messages whose intent is either to perpetuate existing myths about the alleged injustice of Europe’s current security environment. but Russian officials and academics periodically pop up on the country’s media platforms to make such allegations. Overall. the West “proclaimed victory” and “vindictively promoted” its security interests at the expense of Russia’s. b) Suggestions that. rather.. d) The promotion of the idea that. No official document or authority is ever presented for this assertion. nor implied in any international treaties concluded during the period of 1987-1991. and the fact that the countries of the former-Communist world chose EU and NATO membership. The fact that the Warsaw Pact was actually dismantled by its member-states with Moscow simply being unable to halt this process is glossed over. There are plenty of examples of the Russian propaganda campaign’s efforts to perpetuate myths which serve to delegitimise Europe’s current security arrangements. The following is not an exhaustive list. cumulative effect of this biased media coverage is to create a totally misleading impression of what the "majority view" of any given subject is . languages and transmission methods. Russia’s behaviour today is similar to that of Germany’s Weimar Republic during the 1920s. only to see the Alliance doing precisely that from the second half of the 1990s onwards. or create new tensions which can bring about the collapse of the existing security environment. to assist in a broader Russian objective: to undermine the strategic status quo established in Europe at the end of the Cold War. c) Repeated assertions that Russia was promised that NATO won’t enlarge to the countries of Central and Eastern Europe. Broader European Aims of Russian Propaganda Efforts 39. 40. this argument misses both the creation of structures such as the NATO-Russia Council and the EU's unique rate of two summits a year with Russia. serious and in urgent need of a response. and over a sustained and relatively lengthy period of time.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence. Still. but here are the main elements of the Moscow-induced narrative: a) Allegations that. the message is not always entirely coherent. the challenge to European security arising from this media offensive is sustained. the Russians see as the perpetuation of an “injustice” which came about after the collapse of the Soviet Union: the installation across the former-Communist world of democratic institutions and governments and their subsequent decisions to join the EU and NATO (a process which Russia mis-labels as the aggressive "expansion" of those organisations).svc. while Russia “disarmed” at the end of the Cold 8 of 12 27/03/16 21:48 . but the West refused to dismantle NATO in reciprocity. the execution of the policy is more random and poorly-thought out than commonly assumed. The fundamental and overall objective of Russia’s media offensive in Europe is not only to justify current Russian government priorities or provide a positive gloss on Russian activities – otherwise the established and expected priorities of any state-funded propaganda machine – but.airbrushing reality to give it a Kremlin-friendly glow. or to use them in broader commentaries about the current security situation in the world without ever bothering to back these commentaries with even a shred of evidence.. instead of engaging with Russia in a partnership at the end of the Cold War.Written evidence . For what most of the rest of Europe sees as the fount of stability and the bedrock of all its security arrangements. Russian Strategies 41. Since this media offensive is conducted across a variety of platforms.

or to engage in a security dialogue with Moscow about the ‘security challenges’ they raise. For the Western part of Europe. but also created an unstable situation in Europe. the Russian propaganda effort has recently added a new layer of arguments. which are designed more specifically to break up Europe’s security arrangements. d) The best way of dealing with the East Europeans is either to ignore them altogether. or to imply that they are so ‘fragile’ and so beset with ‘problems’ and 'mismanagement' as to make their future existence precarious at best. in fact. Russian media efforts in those countries concentrate on suggesting that no ‘salvation’ 27/03/16 21:48 . but both are intended to ultimately achieve the same outcome: create divisions in order to paralyse NATO and EU action from within. War. * Nations which are either historically friendly to Russia. Towards them. or to their imaginary scenarios of doom and gloom. all they seek are Western-generated benefits. and assumes new forms by “encroaching” on Russian sphere of influence or “legitimate interests” in Ukraine. however. the following messages are frequently used: The enlargement of NATO and – increasingly – also of the European Union was a ‘step too far’. As the Kremlin sees it. where Russia is conducting not one. the West continued to engage in an arms race with the intention of “containing” Russia. the region is divided into the following groups: * Poland and Romania. nobody should listen to what they have to say. Moldova. but four distinct policies at the same time. the West engaged in a massive divestment tactical nuclear weapons. unreasonable and hysterically anti-Russian. To these rather familiar refrains. a) 44. Serbia and Macedonia are part of this group to which the Russians are already offering a variety of economic and political inducements. the Russian propaganda message is either to castigate them as a nuisance which should be ignored. * Nations left outside NATO or the EU. Bulgaria and potentially the Czech Republic fall into this category. all tied to the condition that they should refuse offers of integration into other European structures. which are therefore vulnerable enough to be influenced. as well as Central Asia.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence. used for the Central and East Europeans. Hungary. without offering anything in return. b) The East Europeans are ungrateful.. while Russia maintains a significant stockpile. The suggestion that the “struggle” between the West and Russia is continuing.svc. which are regarded as irredeemably hostile to Russian interests but are too big to ignore: the two nations are subjected to an unremittingly hostile media campaign with the aim of isolating them and highlighting the supposedly high price they will be required to pay for their stance. These arguments are usually tailored for two separate markets. * The Baltic States. an unnecessary move which not only aggravated relations between the West and Russia. 42. Belarus. Such countries are usually praised for their behaviour.parliament. c) The countries or Eastern Europe are neither democratic. nor team-players in Europe. the Caucasus and even the Middle East. 43. a Western one and an Eastern European one.. as they will only drag the West into an unnecessary confrontation with Russia. 9 of 12 Separate messages are. Slovakia. Each campaign preys on existing fears or prejudices in the relevant region. or are run by leaders who are favourably disposed to the Kremlin. which are also seen as irredeemably hostile but are too small to affect Europe’s strategic architecture on their own.Ben Nimmo and Dr Jonathan Eyal e) http://data.Written evidence . or are often exempt from the criticism heaped on others.

and that this created the current tensions. Many of the current Russian claims that Europe is about to face a ‘return to the Cold War’ are intended to alarm people into inaction. yet not others. Many Western academics accept. although the Central and East Europeans may be in NATO and the EU. Some analysts have come to accept the contention that it would have been possible to dismantle NATO in the early 1990s and that this would have somehow promoted European security. d) Promote the idea that. All these arguments are fundamentally. These are: a) Encourage suspicions in the minds of leaders in the new NATO member-states about the readiness of Western nations to come to their aid should events require it. 45.Ben Nimmo and Dr Jonathan Eyal http://data. but the fact that they are even taken seriously is an indication that. crimes. certain Russian messages remain uniform. Conclusion 47.. terrorist acts and welfare abuses. if not irretrievably flawed. 46. they are never likely to be taken seriously or considered as equal by their Western brethren. and that the only way of putting an end to the crises in Ukraine and Syria is to ‘split the difference’ between the West and Russia in both these conflicts. for instance. by nurturing Moscow’s good relations with some nations. and it has already scored some notable results. e) Encourage the idea among electorates in Central and Eastern Europe that there are opportunities for greater economic well-being by cooperating with Moscow. b) Raise doubts about NATO’s posture and ability to defend its member states. 10 of 12 27/03/16 21:48 . Moscow has succeeded in getting across a set of messages which may well hobble European security. as Putin sees matters.svc. However. For the mischief which Russia’s propaganda machine can create remains substantial. Quite a few security specialists in Europe and the US now assume that all that needs to be done is to accept that Russia is entitled to a sphere of influence. and which need to be urgently confronted. supposedly. support for non-traditional families) and to take in huge numbers of 'dangerous' migrants. halt the aggravation in our relations with Russia at the moment.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence. notwithstanding its often risible propaganda effort. c) Increase the divisions in Central or Eastern Europe about any need to invoke the security guarantees offered by NATO should a crisis arise. that it should be allowed to have one. can come from European integration. that the West behaved “triumphantly” at the end of the Cold War towards Russia. the purpose of the Russian activity is nothing less than to put an end to the post-Cold War security arrangement. For there is no doubt that Vladimir Putin is determined to push as much resources as he can afford into this effort.parliament. rather. g) The EU is trying to force these countries to adopt 'perverted' and 'decadent' standards (equal rights for sexual minorities. just the outcome of a capricious decision taken by Western leaders who have no interest in peace and security.Written evidence . who will carry out rapes. And probably a majority of security analysts still assume that it is up to the West to prevent a return to the Cold War by implementing a set of measures which would. f) Strengthen the claim that current tensions between Russia and the rest of Europe are not as a result of some actions by Moscow but.. and that the best course these nations can follow is one which maintains their ‘neutrality’. And there is equally no doubt that. It would be wrong to dismiss these efforts as another self-defeating attempt by a declining power to cause mischief. Moscow’s propaganda machine is also devoting resources to preventing countries such as Finland and Sweden from joining NATO: the objective is to maintain a distinction between the membership composition of NATO and the EU and to retain some fluidity and unpredictability in Europe’s current security arrangements. notwithstanding the fact this is backed by no evidence. to all the various groups of audiences in Central and Eastern Europe.

or reporting comments favourable to the subject. On the BBC website.com/op-edge/329433-investigation-russia-eu-meddling/>." European Parliament resolution 2015/2001(INI).de/2015/06/state-of-eu-russia-relationsbrief. On two occasions.html> [13] All statistics were generated by searching the full name of the candidate in question on the RT website.   14 March 2016   [1] http://www.5 [9] Ofcom Code 5. 1 July 2015.html>. accessed on 2 February 2016.html>.theguardian. 11 of 12 27/03/16 21:48 . accessed on 1 February 2016. accessed on 2 February 2016. accessed on 2 February 2016. "Far-right election monitors in the service of Russian foreign policy". < https://www. accessed on 3 February 2016. [5] Equivalent to approximately £215 million in October 2014. [18] See Robert Bridge. "More money. 30 June 2015. < https://www. "Barrister struck over claim that senior law lord had him kidnapped. see Anton Shekhovtsov." Daily Telegraph.Written evidence .do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+TA+P8-TA-2015-0225+0+DOC+XML+V0 //EN>. "Putin becomes target of bizarre personal attacks as West's regime-change policy fizzles. more problems?" RT. accessed on 3 February 2016.com/article/uk-britain-eu-idUKKCN0VB005>. Russia Insider. but his name was not mentioned in the headline. more problems?". [7] It should be noted that not all of these speakers may be aware of the role they are playing. < http://www.europa.eu/sides/getDoc. an increase of almost 50% in ruble terms.html>. "The Litvinenko Inquiry: London's Absurd Show Trial". [12] Information on EP committees can be found online at <http://www. [20] See Murray Wardrop. cit. < https://www. "US investigation into 'Russian meddling' in the EU will be a farce.europarl. accessed on 2 February 2016.org /en/pro-putin-think-tank-based-in-new-york-shuts-down/>.com/europe/20160202/1034093305/cameron-tusk-brexit-deal. these figures relate to coverage on the RT site. 19 February 2015.co.eu/en/term8-state-of-eu-russia-relations-motionfor-resolution-vote-resolution.reuters." RT.rt. for the sake of consistency.com/en/politics/litvinenko-inquiry-was/ri12452>.Ben Nimmo and Dr Jonathan Eyal http://data. [8] Ofcom Code 5. chapter 10. [6] According to RT.europarl.rt. [23] "On the state of EU-Russia relations.svc. As such.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence. op.theguardian. 19 January 2016. < http://www.parliament. before the ruble collapsed.stopfake. < http://www. 30 January 2016.blogspot.org. Lexington books. < http://anton-shekhovtsov.html>. reporting on them without further comment.eu/committees /en/parliamentary-committees. Corbyn was named a “Labour MP” in headlines.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9146307/Barrister-struck-off-over-claimthat-senior-law-lord-had-him-kidnapped.eu.com/op-edge/330696-putin-western-media-propaganda/>." RT. online at < http://uk. Negative: criticising the subject or reporting comments critical of the subject. <http://www. < http://russia-insider. [25] Voting data from VoteWatch. [11] See "Tusk's plan to keep Britain in EU draws mixed response. rather than air time. The 2016 budget stands at 19 billion rubles.telegraph.. [17] Danielle Ryan. [21] See "Pro-Putin think tank in New York shuts down".europa. 26 January 2016. [16] Figures refer to headlines containing the candidate’s name since they declared their leadership bids.rt. [24] For a list of those who voted against the motion. See "More money. 2 February 2016. "And I know that's true because I saw the Russian observer say so on RT.com/politics/2014/sep/19/russiacalls-foul-scottish-referendum [3] Such as the "Yes" voter who assured one of our authors that the results of the independence referendum had been rigged. these instances have not been taken into account. [19] See Alexander Mercouris. StopFake. some are likely to be unaware of the source and nature of the disinformation which they transmit." [4] According to RT's own reporting. accessed on 2 February 2016. accessed on 3 February 2016. "State of EU-Russia relations: A brief analysis of the EP vote".. in Eurasianism and the European far right. 16 March 2012.com /op-edge/233147-media-rt-financing-myths-facts/>. accessed on 3 February 2016. [15] Burnham’s came close when he was headlined as a “Labour MP” in a report on 10 August. 10 June 2015. [22] See for example Anton Shekhovtsov. accessed on 3 February 2016.7 [10] Report online at < http://sputniknews.votewatch. identical headlines in different sections of the site are excluded.com/politics/2014/sep/22/scottish-referendum-vote-rigging-claims-recount-petitions [2] See The Guardian's analysis of RT's referendum coverage: http://www." Reuters. [14] Positive / neutral: praising the subject’s policies.

pdf?sfvrsn=2>.com/sections/europes-east/national-fronts-russian-loans-cause-uproar-european-parliament310599>. AtTheGrapevine.com/politics/the-bizarrerelationship-between-the-european-left-and-putins-russia>. 24 February 2015. and Jade Glynn. "Bringing the Rebels: Russian media and the far right".parliament. accessed on 3 February 2016. EurActiv. [26] See "National Front's Russian loans cause uproar in European Parliament".blob. 5 December 2014. Legatum Institute. September 2015.atthegrapevine.. < http://www. <http://www.net/lif/docs/default-source/publications/bringing-the-rebels-by-antonshekhovtsov-september-2015-pdf.core.svc.euractiv..windows. [27] See for example Anton Shekhovtsov. "The bizarre relationship between the European Left and Putin's Russia".Ben Nimmo and Dr Jonathan Eyal http://data. both accessed on 3 February 2016.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence. 12 of 12 27/03/16 21:48 .com.Written evidence . <https://lif.